Trump and the Unions

Despite his working-class base, he toes the traditional Republican line.

Trump won thanks to support from working-class voters in Rust Belt states. He even managed “Reagan-like support,” to use the Washington Post’s term, from union households in particular: he lost them by just eight points, tied with the Gipper’s 1984 performance. George W. Bush, John McCain, and Mitt Romney all lost union households by about 20 points; thanks to Ross Perot, Bill Clinton’s Republican opponents each fell about 30 points behind.

Trump achieved this without being particularly “pro-labor” in the way that union officials would define it. Certainly, he’s had some nice things to say: in a 2000 book, he wrote that “with the globalization craze in full heat, unions are about the only force reminding us to remember the American family.” But he’s fought unions directly as a businessman, and the labor policies he supports are quite typical Republican fare.

Trump’s “100 percent” support of right-to-work laws—the bane of private-sector unions’ existence—is a good place to start. Republicans have gained ground in the states, where these laws are typically enacted, and the Republican platform supports right-to-work as a federal, nationwide policy.

In general, when workers vote to unionize, the union must represent all of them when it bargains with their employer—including those who voted no, as well as subsequent hires who don’t want to join. In return, all workers usually have to pay dues or fees to the union. Right-to-work makes those payments optional.

According to the unions, that allows “free-riding,” because they still have to represent the workers who don’t pay. Conservatives respond that people shouldn’t have to pay for something they don’t even want—and that if unions truly see it as a burden to represent non-paying workers, they should organize employees on a members-only basis instead of holding elections and seeking to represent everyone. These are the kinds of unions a free marketeer can love: they represent only those who join voluntarily, and the law doesn’t force employers to bargain with them.

This suggestion doesn’t go over well, though, because unions don’t merely object to representing people who don’t pay. Rather, unions want to represent all employees whether they like it or not, take those employees’ money whether they like it or not, and force employers to the bargaining table under penalty of law—and they don’t think they should have to choose among these priorities. Trump has sided with orthodox conservatives on the question of whether this is a reasonable demand. This means, however, that he has backed a policy that saps unions’ already waning strength in the private sector.

Trump could also undermine unions by stocking federal agencies with right-leaning appointees. Federal labor law is vague on many important details, leaving agencies like the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to set policy as they see fit. President Obama took full advantage of that leeway, and Trump can be expected to as well.

It also greatly expanded the use of “micro-unions,” meaning that when a union lacks the support it needs to organize a whole workplace, it can instead organize one small part at a time, like the cosmetics department at a Macy’s store. The board also allowed “ambush” or “quickie” elections, meaning that employers can have as little as ten days to make a case against unionization before workers vote.

Public-sector unions could also become a target. The case Friedrich v. California Teachers Association et al., for example, recently ended in a 4-4 Supreme Court tie, setting no precedent and leaving open the possibility that another case could address the same issue soon. The issue in question: whether it violates the First Amendment to require public employees, as a condition of their employment, to fund an inherently political organization like a union. Judging from Antonin Scalia’s comments at oral argument, the Supreme Court would have struck down this practice 5-4 had he not passed away before the ruling came down. A Court with a new Trump justice would likely reach the same result, allowing public employees to simply opt out of paying their union dues and thereby gutting public-sector unions.

Most, even all, of this is laudable from a conservative or libertarian perspective. But it’s an odd fit for a populist—and while Trump hardly hid his support for these policies during the campaign, he didn’t emphasize it, either. One wonders how his blue-collar supporters might view these changes once their effects become clear.

MORE FROM THIS AUTHOR

Hide 21 comments

21 Responses to Trump and the Unions

And the implementation of those “stereotypical right-wing views on the subject” are exactly what has immiserated the working class over the last 35 years, along with deregulation (And THANK YOU, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton!), tax cuts for the wealthy, automation and so-called free trade. Unions are the fundamental fighting arm of the working class as a whole; without them, workers are essentially defenseless. The busting of the unions in the private sector in the 1980’s and of some of the public unions since 2010 has not improved the lives of anyone but the ruling class and their managers and mouthpieces.

Gods, the revolution can’t come soon enough to bury the entire legacy of Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher and Milton Friedman. And I look forward to the days when Scott Walker and Andrew Cuomo join them in the fiery pits of hell.

Except for some resistance to free trade, Trump is about to totally give into the interests and demands of the global economic elite and financial sector….look for tax reductions for the wealthy (including his family), the gutting of financial regulations, and Paul Ryan’s privatization schemes.

One key indicator: on the campaign trail Trump promised to repeal the carried interest tax provisions that benefit only hedge fund managers. Anyone think he will ever mention this again, no less implement it?

Interesting piece, but some of the assumptions are flawed. Trump is no free market ideologue, and the issues mentioned above are not particularly important to his agenda. Moreover, Trump and the people around him should be well aware of the importance of the “working class” voting bloc to his and the Republican Party’s victories in the recent election. If Trump is to win reelection in 2020 and the Republican Party is going to continue to maintain and expand its electoral dominance, the interests of the working class voting bloc absolutely cannot be taken for granted–the indifference of the Republican establishment and Democratic establishment to their concerns was in fact the reason I believe he steamed rolled his opposition in the primaries, and why he was able to realign politically the country to gain the Presidency. I don’t think Trump would support the “anti-union” policies listed if he thought it actually mattered to the working class voting bloc. Right now I would guess the view is the policies are good for unions, not necessarily good for workers. But I don’t a strong ideological commitment to that view either, and that Trump’s position very easily could change if he thought it benefit him and the Party politically. This is why the private sector unions– including the Teamsters, the United Steel workers, the UAW–made a big strategic error in putting all their chips on Hillary Clinton and the Democrats. If they had endorsed Trump, Trump definitely would have listened to them on some this and he may have gone at least halfway with them on some of these issues. Now, I don’t know. It will depend a lot on the appointments, and whether Trump cares to cultivate support from the private sector unions for his reelection four years from now. I think his chances of succeeding are decent if he wants to pursue this. These unions would gain fair more having him as a friend than as a enemy. I would add that Senior Advisor and Trump ideologist, Steve Bannon, who seems to see the right-left ideological spectrum today more in terms of support for globalization than in traditional terms of support for free market ideology, may already be fairly sympathetic to the Obama administration’s policies in this regard. Certainly, these types of issues are not something he would want to wage much of a fight and over, unlike the the Paul Ryans of the world.

“Conservatives respond that people shouldn’t have to pay for something they don’t even want -“. What a howler. OK, I don’t want to pay for any part of the F35 fighter. I, or anyone, could name dozens of overpriced boondoggles not deserving of funding with our tax dollars. Fat chance we’ll be relieved of the obligation to pay for them.

Wonder away, Mr. Ver Bruggen. Since 80 percent of Americans cannot name the three branches of government, I think we can safely assume that the number is much higher for your average Trump voter. I work with a number of them, and as recently as last week I was told that for 8 years Obama has been bussing in welfare recipients from around the country to throw local races to Democrats. Trumps “loves the uneducated.” I wonder why.

I would hope that Trump would either be slightly bullish, or at least neutral, on the private unions, but go after the big public unions.

The private unions are a pretty small segment of the economy, and the subject of mostly mature long-standing relationships, so if he did something with a lot of publicity, it would help with the hard hat populist cred, while giving him space to go after a much bigger target–a target that can be combined with other conservative goals like school choice.

I know conservatives and libertarians are much too principled to endorse a divide and conquer strategy, but that is my 2 cents.

According to the unions, that allows “free-riding,” because they still have to represent the workers who don’t pay. Conservatives respond that people shouldn’t have to pay for something they don’t even want—and that if unions truly see it as a burden to represent non-paying workers, they should organize employees on a members-only basis instead of holding elections and seeking to represent everyone. These are the kinds of unions a free marketeer can love: they represent only those who join voluntarily, and the law doesn’t force employers to bargain with them.

You areaware that Federal labor law mandates that unions represent non-paying members, aren’t you? As a union officer, I’d be happy to have to represent just those who pay dues. But, if I do that, I will get sued – and the National Right to Work Foundation will be thrilled to help the people suing me.

KevinS says: “Except for some resistance to free trade, Trump is about to totally give into the interests and demands of the global economic elite and financial sector….look for tax reductions for the wealthy (including his family), the gutting of financial regulations, and Paul Ryan’s privatization schemes.”

To be fair, I’ve always thought it would take a Democratic president to shove through Social Security privatization, kind of like NAFTA only got through will Bill Clinton peeling off enough Democrats in the House to push it over the top with mostly Republican votes. Lord knows I’m worried that Trump will turn over most of the policymaking to various members of the GOP and conservative establishment, but he has argued that running on a platform that included SS privatization was mad, and instead called for increasing SS benefits. He might realize that pushing even partial SS privatization would be considered a betrayal too far by his base.

Winston, thanks for the link. Good piece. The American South has been promoting economic development through low wages probably since the end of the Civil War (remember Lillian Hellman’s “The Little Foxes”?). I remember a North Carolina gentleman my sister knew through Business and Professional Women bragging about the businesses and jobs moved there from other states because of the promise of low wages. On the other hand, during graduate school, I remember reviewing the literature on the question of why companies moves from one state to another, and while targeted tax breaks and low wages had an effect, the most effective incentive was the relative absence of labor unions. And by the way, from familial experience, blue collar work in North Carolina sucks.

It is one thing to make non-union members to pay for representation but the unions use non-,member money for political actions. All the laws to prevent this are routinely circumvented so we have right to work laws. If the unions were honest it would be another story.

Robert Levine: I am aware that labor law requires unions to represent everyone *after winning an election*, which is why I quite explicitly said that in the article. (“In general, when workers vote to unionize, the union must represent all of them when it bargains with their employer.”)

Unions are not, however, required to win elections in the first place. They can instead organize everyone who wants to join and bargain on their behalf only. This is called a “members-only” union. Follow the link in the article for a fuller explanation of this method (which has been explicitly upheld by the Supreme Court) by James Sherk.

These are the kinds of unions a free marketeer can love: they represent only those who join voluntarily, and the law doesn’t force employers to bargain with them.

People understand, right, that right-to-work laws are an intervention and a regulation of a free market? Union shops are a result of a business freely making a contract with a union.

Saying they can’t exist, ie. supporting right-to-work, is the government using force to suppress a free market arrangement. So when conservatives use “free market” and “right-to-work” in the same sentence, its double-talk.

@Harold,

It is one thing to make non-union members to pay for representation but the unions use non-,member money for political actions. All the laws to prevent this are routinely circumvented so we have right to work laws. If the unions were honest it would be another story.

What laws?

Citizens United prohibited legislation that would require political contributions to require consent of those giving dues under the argument that it would violate the First Amendment.

During the hearing, the justices were presented with the argument that corporations could money from shareholders on politics without consent; the conservative justices laughed that off, asking why they couldn’t just participate in shareholders meetings.

And the implementation of those “stereotypical right-wing views on the subject” are exactly what has immiserated the working class over the last 35 years, along with deregulation (And THANK YOU, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton!), tax cuts for the wealthy, automation and so-called free trade

This makes no sense. Deregulation and tax cuts might have helped the wealthy, but they had no effect on the working class. Just because the wealthy are helped doesn’t mean the working class are hurt.

Free trade, affected the working class, yes. Automation, yes, but that’s not a political issue, so I’m not sure why you’re bringing it up unless you want a ban on automation. Another one you didn’t mention is illegal immigration.

Re: Robert VerBruggen– I never comment on articles but the misleading nature of this article and your comment are staggering. Employers are not legally obligated to negotiate with a “members-only” union and you know that. Employers can also retaliate because members-only unions do not have the full legal protections under the NLRA. You know this. I know this. But you are counting on your readers not knowing this so that you can sell them the idea that taking away the power of collective bargaining is somehow a benefit. Thus the current race to the bottom for American workers in terms of their wages and benefits.

Countries with a healthy manufacturing sector like Germany have widespread private sector unions. Unions are not the culprit for the decline of manufacturing in the United States, but their decline has contributed to the rise of inequality.

I still have serious doubts as to whether he really wanted to win this time, or, at least, to actually have the job. I don’t see him running again at all. He’ll get what he can out of this and move on.

Unions are not, however, required to win elections in the first place. They can instead organize everyone who wants to join and bargain on their behalf only. This is called a “members-only” union. Follow the link in the article for a fuller explanation of this method (which has been explicitly upheld by the Supreme Court) by James Sherk.

They are only required to win elections if they want employers to be required to bargain with them. Both the NLRB and the courts have consistently held that employers only have the obligation to bargain with unions that have won representation elections. Given how hard it is to get employers to bargain for a first contract even when they are legally obligated to do so, members-only unions are viewed rather skeptically by the union world as a tool to improve the lot of workers.

This would matter less if the tools unions had to pressure employers into bargaining with them weren’t so weak, but they are. In particular, secondary boycotts by unions were outlawed by Taft-Hartley, even though they are nothing more than the exercise of free speech rights.

There are people in the union world who believe that unions would be better off with no labor law at all, as American labor law is so pro-employer.

Amy: I said right in the article that “the law doesn’t force employers to bargain with them,” so I have no idea whatsoever what you find “misleading.”

Robert Levine: I believe we’re in agreement on the facts, but we have a different view of whether it’s appropriate for the government to force one private party to bargain with another. We probably have to agree to disagree on that.